Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Share

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 09, 2011 5:30 am

    It is clear the Russian Army has decided it does not need or want the T-95.

    However the technologies developed for the T-95 will likely become part of what ever replaces the T-90, and with the time delay hopefully it will have far more Russian components from hardware to electronics than a T-95 produced right now.

    It makes sense to get the Army sorted out regarding command and communications etc first before introducing a brand new tank... however if the goal is to protect the crew then the T-95 is still a valid design and I think whatever replaces the T-90 will have a lot in common with the T-95.

    In practical terms however it seems they have finalised the T-90AM design so hopefully it will go into production next year and existing T-90s will be upgraded to its standard during overhaul/maintainence.

    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  nightcrawler on Sat Apr 09, 2011 12:29 pm

    Russians are planning to adopt a new bore size probably 152mm smooth-bore

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 09, 2011 1:22 pm

    Russians are planning to adopt a new bore size probably 152mm smooth-bore

    Eventually yes. But not with the T-90AM AFAIK.

    I personally think it might have a calibre of 155mm as the Russians already use 152mm rifled artillery... going for a 155mm smooth bore gun might allow the sharing of some ammo types, but a 152mm artillery piece and a similar calibre smooth bore tank gun will have little in common.

    As evidence look at the previous Russian and Soviet tank guns... they went from the 115mm smoothbore of the T-62 to the 125mm smoothbore of the T-64... they didn't make a 122mm calibre smoothbore because that was an existing artillery calibre AND a Grad rocket artillery calibre.

    There would be no advantage to reusing the 122mm calibre as the tank gun smoothbore would operate at completely different chamber pressures and likely use a different loading method.
    The ammo would be completely different too.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 09, 2011 1:25 pm

    A couple of things I notice from the above photos include that while fuzzy the photo of the T-95 seems to have a very high gun position within the turret... perhaps to clear boxes on the hull top that seem to be optics perhaps for the crew.
    Also the T-90AM seems to have greatly increased turret side armour protection too.

    runaway
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 351
    Points : 372
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  runaway on Sat Apr 09, 2011 7:32 pm

    GarryB wrote:and existing T-90s will be upgraded to its standard during overhaul/maintainence.

    Of the pictures of the T-90AM, it looks as it has ammo storage in the turret. Like the blow out ammo storage of western tanks. If that is the case, it has a completely new autoloader and turret-chassi layout. Hence the previous T-90`s couldnt possible be upgraded, not less than a completly rebuilding, and that isnt likely.

    And i share the opinion that it wont have the 152mm gun. The turret ring cant handle such size or weight.
    Rather it would be incorporated in the next generation of tanks.
    And no, tanks and artillery dont usually share ammo, not since WW2.

    And it isnt necesarily best to put a larger gun on the next tank. It would be better to improve ammo.
    In sweden, we try to improve 40mm APFSDS rounds to have a speed of 4000-8000 m/s. If that succeds, it would be able to take out any MBT with that. Thus completly change the IFV-MBT roles, and maybe, put the MBT`s on the history`s garbage tip. Like the Battleships...


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 10, 2011 2:20 am

    Of the pictures of the T-90AM, it looks as it has ammo storage in the
    turret. Like the blow out ammo storage of western tanks. If that is the
    case, it has a completely new autoloader and turret-chassi layout. Hence
    the previous T-90`s couldnt possible be upgraded, not less than a
    completly rebuilding, and that isnt likely.

    AFAIK the turret for the T-90AM has been physically lengthened slightly to add more internal space for new equipment like battle managment computers and comms, but it is a standard turret design below the turret ring.

    Experience showed that the ammo in the underfloor autoloader was quite safe in the T-72/T-90 line of vehicles as all ammo is horizontal and armoured to protect it in case the crew compartment was penetrated.
    The problem was that only 22 rounds are stored there so the remaining 18 rounds were in the crew compartment and they were the problem when the tank was penetrated in combat.

    In actual combat the crews stopped taking full ammo loads and only had ammo in the autoloader and that greatly reduced crew casualties because the tanks weren't exploding.

    Based on this experience the T-90AM has an extra autoloader attached to the rear of the turret that is separated from the crew compartment and holds an extra 20-30 rounds with the added bonus that these rounds are simply rammed straight into the breach so long penetrators can be used and in theory it should be faster to reload.

    I don't see why such a new turret could not be retrofitted to any T-72 tank as below the turret ring it is the same as previous T-72 models and the ring diameter should be the same.

    And i share the opinion that it wont have the 152mm gun. The turret ring cant handle such size or weight. Rather it would be incorporated in the next generation of tanks.

    That was what I was thinking. Normally having several tank calibres in service at once would be frowned upon from a logistical standpoint, but as they are getting rid of two calibres (100mm rifled tank ammo for the T-54/55, and the towed gun equivelents, and the 115mm smoothbore from the T-62 and towed equivelents) they are still doing OK. If they feel the need for the new round then that shouldn't be too much of an issue.

    It should be pointed out that the Russians don't have the same fixation the west has with APFSDS rounds. Most of the ammo carried by Russian tanks is HE or HEAT in a normal load. An increase in calibre greatly improves the performance of HEAT rounds and also allows rather more space for sophisticated electronics needed for gun launched guided weapons.

    And no, tanks and artillery dont usually share ammo, not since WW2.

    The primary artillery round is still the HE shell... for which spin stabilisation is more useful than fin stabilisation. Also artillery rarely fire APFSDS or HEAT rounds which don't like spin stabilisation. (long thin APFSDS rounds are too long and thin to stabilise, and spinning reduces the penetration of a HEAT jet.)

    Of course smoothbores also have the advantage of higher muzzle velocity which is more important for a tank gun than artillery too.

    However these days attempts to increase artillery range to 60km or 80km or even 100km+ high velocity is a good thing... perhaps soon there will be a return to a unified gun/shell.

    Talk of EM powered guns firing shells at enormous speeds... over 5km/s with flight ranges of 400-500km.

    If you could reduce that to a size that could be fitted to a tank it would be a fearsome tank killer.

    And it isnt necesarily best to put a larger gun on the next tank. It would be better to improve ammo.

    The war between ammo and armour has been long and the trophy has changed hands regularly... I dare say it will continue to do so for quite some time to come. Smile

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 6085
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  Austin on Sun Apr 10, 2011 6:56 pm

    Project Armata

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 11, 2011 5:15 am

    Ahhh, I thought that was something official. Sad

    This is just speculation from Dimmi from mil.net.

    Not that he is wrong of course, but most of that is just public knowledge.

    Armata is a family of vehicles and is the creation of the Russian military who obviously were creating new force structures and had been told they need to replace everything... eventually. By 2020 they will have 70% brand new stuff.
    Assuming they continue the process they will have to replace everything.

    So changing from Armies and divisions and brigades, they have dropped divisions and created 4 districts with brigade structures.

    When they were developing this new structure they needed to talk about the weaponry and vehicles each brigade would be equipped with and once its purpose and use had been established its design could be developed.

    Armata is the family for the heavy vehicles in the heavy brigades so amphibious capability will not be an issue... but bridging vehicles will.

    After working out what each brigade type will be expected to do and where etc they went to the makers of armoured vehicles to see what they were working on.

    What they were working on was what they were asked to be working on, so there was the T-95... a big expensive cold war super tank, and the BMPT fire support tank, and the Coalition... based on the T-95, and of course the Sprut which is a BMD-3 chassis with a 125mm gun on top.

    The problem was that the T-95 is too big and unwieldy, and they don't want a new calibre, and it is too expensive.
    The BMPT is a fire support vehicle that doesn't even have the fire power of the BMP-4.
    Coalition is based on the T-95.
    And Sprut is a nice try but the BMD-3 chassis is too lightly armoured for a medium brigade and the majority of the light brigade will be wheeled so it would be better if it was an 8 or 10 wheeled chassis.

    So all those programs as they are have been cancelled and gap fillers have been applied... the BTR-82 covers the basic issues with the BTR-80 without costing too much. The T-90AM will cover the vast majority of the issues with the T-90, though the extra cost has resulted in some moaning.

    The new programs will be not hugely different from what they replace... Coalition will likely eventually see service on an Armata chassis. AFAIK its development was a joint program with the Navy for much longer range artillery fire with guided projectiles.
    The Sprut turret will likely be fitted to the vehicle that I originally called Gilza and now is apparently called Boomerang, which will be a better armoured 25 ton amphibious wheeled vehicle that makes the family for the light brigade with lots of Volk and Tiger-M like support vehicles too.
    A more thickly armoured Sprut turret might even be used on the medium BMP level armoured vehicle as the fire support vehicle for the medium brigades.

    The Armata tank that replaces the T-90AM will likely have lots of features that the T-95 has... though I suspect the 65 ton model will be the artillery version of Coalition with its enormous turret making it rather heavy... if very capable.

    What I am trying to say is that Armata isn't a UVZ development... it is a theoretical vehicle developed by the Russian military and I am guessing that to save time any feature the Russian military demands of the Armata that was developed for the T-95 UVZ will not develop from scratch... they will simply use that technology in the new vehicle family.

    If you follow the link to Dimmi's page he lists the modifications as BREM, APC, and MBT... to which I would add Coalition type artillery vehicle, and air defence vehicle too... probably Pantsir or TOR. Within the brigade the commonality of chassis will be an advantage for the logistics tail.
    I should add that the APC version of the Armata will likely be lightly armed... if you look at the weapon options for the BTRT you can see that filling a vehicle with troops and then putting 100mm guns and 40 rounds of 100mm HE rounds plus missiles and 30mm cannons means not only is there less space for dis-mountable troops, it also means those troops are at risk of fire or explosion if the vehicle is penetrated.
    The solution is to separate the troop carrier from the IFV by creating a BMPT type vehicle.
    Yes I know the BMPT was rejected, but its armament was wrong... two 30mm cannon and ATAKA missiles just isn't good enough.
    The Armata fire support vehicle should have an externally mounted 100mm rifled gun from the BMP-3M with a turret bustle autoloader to separate the ammo from the crew compartment and the external mount should allow a 20 degree gun depression and at least 75 degree elevation so 100mm HE rounds can be directed at targets that Tanks have problems hitting because of elevation limits of their main guns.(which was the whole point of the BMPT).
    Also a 30mm cannon should be mounted with the 100mm gun as on the BMP-3M and preferably external mount gun turrets with wide fields of fire should be fitted at the front of the chassis... the Balkan is small enough to enable an external mount and is powerful enough to be effective. PKTs are another option but both would be best in each turret.
    Note the 100mm rifled main gun has only one type of standard ammo so the bustle autoloader can be simple like a belt feed of a machine gun. A seperate feed from the other side could hold the 4-6 guided missiles perhaps in a rotary drum feed for the external cannon.

    Of the pictures of the T-90AM, it looks as it has ammo storage in the
    turret. Like the blow out ammo storage of western tanks. If that is the
    case, it has a completely new autoloader and turret-chassi layout. Hence
    the previous T-90`s couldnt possible be upgraded, not less than a
    completly rebuilding, and that isnt likely.

    I should add that when Omsk tank production fell apart the design team moved to UVZ and took with them the Black Eagle design.
    I would suggest that the turret bustle auto loader probably came from this design team, which was separated from the crew compartment, though in the Black Eagle design the under floor auto loader was removed.

    The auto loader in the T-72/-90 series has the two piece ammo in the under floor autoloader lying horizontally with armour on top to separate it from the crew.
    In the autoloader in the T-80 series the rounds are stored horizontally with their rear fins outwards but the propellent charges are stored around the outer edge vertically with their stubs upwards.

    The problem is that the stub propellent cartridges are very very huge fire risks and of course with 22 of these around the base of the turret any penetration leading to hot fragments falling to the floor... well it was quickly worked out in combat that this was a problem... the Black Eagle design dealt with that problem by completely removing the underfloor autoloader and moving it to a new armoured turret bustle position.

    Still using two piece ammo there was no 90 degree turns to load and ammo could simply be rammed straight into the gun which is both faster and simpler and of course allows for much longer penetrators to be used.

    With the T-90AM with all the ammo in auto loaders it makes things much easier for the crew, and with all the ammo in armoured or external auto loaders it is much safer for the crew as well.

    It took 15-20 minutes to load the 22 rounds into the under turret autoloader and rounds had to be handed up and loaded through the turret roof hatches.
    Great care had to be taken with the propellent stubs.

    The type of round loaded into each autoloader cell had to be stored in the fire control system so when a target appeared that required a specific type of ammo the autoloader could find the nearest round stored in the autoloader.

    In the Black Eagle design the turret bustle autoloader only held 31 rounds which is more than the 22 of the original autoloader but less than the standard load of about 40-45 rounds.
    The turret bustle autoloader on the BE design was designed to be removed in one piece like a magazine for a rifle and replaced with a full magazine. This would mean that the tanks would withdraw from the battlefield and be reloaded quickly and sent back into battle... sounds a little awkward, but safer and quicker than manually loading through the roof hatches.

    I wonder how they will load the rear autoloader.

    I remember one of the design changes was to increase the size of the turret hatches.

    Rather than upgrade previous T-90s it might be easier to simply make new turrets for them... the old T-90 turrets could initially be fitted to the T-72s till new turrets are ready for them.


    Last edited by GarryB on Mon Apr 11, 2011 5:39 am; edited 1 time in total

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 6085
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  Austin on Mon Apr 11, 2011 5:38 am

    Armata certainly seems to be a very interesting family vehicle and would be very keen to see how it comes up and what technological solution they apply.

    So if they stick to 125 mm MG as likely be the case but if they manage to say fire a Sabot at about 2,200 m/s from new gun of armata will that we enough to blow the frontal of current armour like Abrams ?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 11, 2011 5:47 am

    With the new autoloaders they can use longer rod penetrators, which should improve performance.

    Also a new gun is fitted as well, which will further improve performance.

    Regarding:

    So if they stick to 125 mm MG as likely be the case but if they
    manage to say fire a Sabot at about 2,200 m/s from new gun of armata
    will that we enough to blow the frontal of current armour like Abrams ?

    They could easily fire Sabot rounds at 2,200m/s now... the question is is it worth it. Velocity alone is not a good indicator of performance.
    By changing the weight of the projectile they can change the muzzle velocity, but making very light projectiles with very high mvs is pointless for the purposes of armour penetration, because lighter projectiles can be launched faster than heavier ones, but lighter projectiles lose velocity faster and might actually be travelling slower by the time it hits the target which means much lower performance on armour.

    I am sure with work on new propellents and new projectiles they will become competitive. It might be that work on the Hermes ATGM that new MMW radar homing seekers or IIR homing seekers might be developed and adopted for use in 125mm calibre missiles for diving top attack use.

    Most of the projectiles I know about for the 125mm are over a decade old... I doubt they have not been working on new ammo all this time.

    Equally work on the 15xmm gun for the T-95 has probably led to some new development in propellents and projectile designs too.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  IronsightSniper on Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:25 pm

    Increasing muzzle velocity is harder than it looks. Already, Russian tanks are limited in the length of their KE penetrators (long and skinny penetrators get higher penetration figures) due to their small turret. The T-90A has a slightly longer turret but that is only to accommodate the newest Russian APFSDS rounds (which do about 650 mm RHAe penetration at 2km). In order to get more muzzle velocity, you can do what Garry discussed which is get a lighter projectile, but that is unlikely to happen (denser projectiles usually get more penetration). There are 3 more ways to get more muzzle velocity; 1. Use higher efficiency powders 2. Get a longer barrel or 3. Get more powder.

    Options 1 and 2 are unpractical as the Russian military already uses some of the most cost-efficient and weight-efficient powders that's available, and increasing the propellant load means that per each Russian tank there is just that much more combustible material to get blown up should a penetration occur. I'd also argue that a longer barrel is impractical, as the current 125mm gun on the T-90 is L/48, which means that the barrel is 48 times longer than the bore caliber, or about 6m long. Making it longer only adds to weight and slows turret traverse.

    Like I've discussed before, the M1A2 Abram's and Leopard 2A6's Front turrets are invulnerable to all in-service APFSDS rounds there are. All of them.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 6085
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  Austin on Mon Apr 11, 2011 4:30 pm

    IronsightSniper wrote:Like I've discussed before, the M1A2 Abram's and Leopard 2A6's Front turrets are invulnerable to all in-service APFSDS rounds there are. All of them.

    So let me ask you this keeping 125 MG and Long Rod as Sabot , what kind of muzzle velocity would be needed to penetrate frontal turrets of Abrams 2 ?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 11, 2011 6:08 pm

    Already, Russian tanks are limited in the length of their KE penetrators
    (long and skinny penetrators get higher penetration figures) due to
    their small turret.

    The restriction on lengths of penetrators is the diameter of the turret ring limiting the length of projectile that can be stored in the underfloor autoloader.

    The T-90AM has a extra turret bustle autoloader that allows penetrators as long as you want to be stored and loaded.

    The second point is just aim lower and don't hit the target in the turret front where the armour is heaviest.

    The new gun fitted to the T-90AM is said to be 15% more accurate and "more powerful" whatever that means.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 6085
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  Austin on Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:43 pm

    where did you get 15% figure from ?

    runaway
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 351
    Points : 372
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  runaway on Mon Apr 11, 2011 9:32 pm

    GarryB wrote:[ the T-90AM has an extra autoloader attached to the rear of the turret that is separated from the crew compartment and holds an extra 20-30 rounds with the added bonus that these rounds are simply rammed straight into the breach so long penetrators can be used and in theory it should be faster to reload.

    Thanks, but doesnt this qualify as a security measure? It would be easy done to have a strong armoured box, with weak top armor. So if it explodes, the force will go upwards and away from the tank.


    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  IronsightSniper on Tue Apr 12, 2011 1:03 am

    Austin wrote:
    IronsightSniper wrote:Like I've discussed before, the M1A2 Abram's and Leopard 2A6's Front turrets are invulnerable to all in-service APFSDS rounds there are. All of them.

    So let me ask you this keeping 125 MG and Long Rod as Sabot , what kind of muzzle velocity would be needed to penetrate frontal turrets of Abrams 2 ?

    Muzzle velocity is not everything. But complying by your wishes:

    Current Muzzle velocity of the BM-42M projectile: 1,750 mps
    Current Penetration at 2km of the BM-42M projectile: 650 mm RHAe

    Using Willi Odermatt's penetrator calculator, the 125mm L/48 gun in service with the T-90 today needs:
    • A 670 mm long penetrator (100 mm longer than current ones)
    • A Depleted Uranium penetrator
    • A 45 kg propellant charge


    To achieve a muzzle velocity of: 2,619 mps
    While having a projectile that weighs: 4.618 kg
    Which means a muzzle energy of: almost 16 mj
    Which will penetrate: 965 mm of RHAe at 2km


    And if you don't remember, the M1A2 Abram's front turret has 960 mm of RHAe v.s. KE.


    Impractical by a large margin if you ask me.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 6085
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  Austin on Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:17 am

    IronsightSniper wrote:Muzzle velocity is not everything. But complying by your wishes:

    Current Muzzle velocity of the BM-42M projectile: 1,750 mps
    Current Penetration at 2km of the BM-42M projectile: 650 mm RHAe

    Using Willi Odermatt's penetrator calculator, the 125mm L/48 gun in service with the T-90 today needs:
    • A 670 mm long penetrator (100 mm longer than current ones)
    • A Depleted Uranium penetrator
    • A 45 kg propellant charge


    To achieve a muzzle velocity of: 2,619 mps
    While having a projectile that weighs: 4.618 kg
    Which means a muzzle energy of: almost 16 mj
    Which will penetrate: 965 mm of RHAe at 2km


    And if you don't remember, the M1A2 Abram's front turret has 960 mm of RHAe v.s. KE.


    Impractical by a large margin if you ask me.

    Thanks for explaining this to me , which now makes me wonder their decision to go for 152 mm round was not a bad choice if they wanted very high first round kill probability then the 152 mm round would have done that for them no matter what the frontal armour protection was , plus the isolation if crew etc make T-95 a very lethal machine.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 12, 2011 7:32 am

    where did you get 15% figure from ?

    http://igorrgroup.blogspot.com/2010/01/90-new-specs.html

    ==Do you know what improvements the 2A82 has over the current guns in service?==

    -
    It's officially declarated ('Plant N9' site) as the 'gun with increased
    might'/ Has Better accurateness, longer service life, lighter, 25%
    more powerfull relative 2A46, but the info is not 100% reliable.

    Sorry, 25% more powerful.

    Thanks, but doesnt this qualify as a security measure? It would be easy
    done to have a strong armoured box, with weak top armor. So if it
    explodes, the force will go upwards and away from the tank.

    Yes, its primary purpose is to remove main gun ammo from the crew compartment... the faster speed and longer penetrator potential are added bonuses.

    A 670 mm long penetrator (100 mm longer than current ones)

    http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/
    "Lekalo" (3BM-42M? projectile; 3BM-44M? projectile assembly) (DOI 199-?)

    Research topic "Svinets-1". A brand new round with extremely high
    elongation tungsten alloy penetrator, utilizing a 4-petal finned
    composite sabot with two areas of contact, and subcaliber stabilizing
    fins. This round has a total length of 740mm and so does not fit in
    traditional T-72 autoloaders. The autoloader upgrade is straightforward
    and is assumed to have been carried out on newly built T-90 tanks that
    are therefore compatible with this round. The indications
    3BM-42M/3BM-44M are unconfirmed: even though this is what is written on
    the body of the round in the released picture, it is unclear if the
    round has been fielded and therefore already awarded a GRAU designation;
    Rosoboronexport sales literature still refers to it simply as
    "high-performance APFSDS round".

    Thanks for explaining this to me , which now makes me wonder their
    decision to go for 152 mm round was not a bad choice if they wanted very
    high first round kill probability then the 152 mm round would have done
    that for them no matter what the frontal armour protection was , plus
    the isolation if crew etc make T-95 a very lethal machine.

    In addition to a kinetic improvement an increase in calibre to over 150mm would allow much more volume for guided projectiles and missiles to be used including dedicated anti tank and anti helo rounds with terminal seeking and fairly long flight range.

    The problem is a serious reduction in on board ammo and probably an increase in ammo costs.

    I rather suspect that initially new 125mm ammo will be used and the decision to change calibre might result in a reduction of calibre rather than an increase in one in about 2020.

    More exotic propellents and new penetrators will likely make armour penetration more effective with smaller calibre weapons. An EM gun that uses superheated plasma as a propellent with electromagnetic boosting of the projectile should lead to enormous increases in muzzle velocity... and an electric tank would be ideal for such a gun setup.

    I have said before and will say again... it will not be far away that electricity management will be an issue for a tank commander and transferring power from the camouflage system (cloaking tech) to the main gun and then shifting it to frontal armour (electric armour and shields) and then transfering some power to propulsion to move position will be normal banter in the internal intercom of a modern tank.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  IronsightSniper on Tue Apr 12, 2011 7:37 am

    Swiss engineers mounted a 140 mm gun on the Leopard 2 and the APFSDS projectile that it fired penetrated 1 m of RHAe easy.

    Pugnax
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 110
    Points : 105
    Join date : 2011-03-15
    Age : 52
    Location : Canada

    First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  Pugnax on Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:43 am

    The t-72 through t-90 have the inherent carrousel/cassete ammo detonation problems ,hence a 99% crew mortality when the turret pops like a cork.T-95 was the answer but the real troopers know to leave the carrousel unloaded,leaving a combat load of 3 minutes sustained fighting ammo.Gimmicks will only delay the fact that with a small ammo supply even t-90S is a death trap.Start building tanks for the physical European build(men of 6 ft or more),even if the tanks are 8 ft high at commanders periscopes,armour them well,make room inside so not every penetration scores a kill.If buying Leo 2 is a national disgrace to acquire perhaps buying a few hundred old British Centurions will teach Russia how to build war winning ,crew saving tanks again.

    Pugnax
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 110
    Points : 105
    Join date : 2011-03-15
    Age : 52
    Location : Canada

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  Pugnax on Wed Apr 13, 2011 6:00 am

    Nathan Bedford Forrest,premiere mobile warfare soldier without a doubt would say the t-72 species sacrifices armour for speed and size in a dog "chasin" his own tail methodology.Make it small,hard to hit ...oops mod sights are to good,make it faster...again modern turret speeds and computerized gunnery offset this.So small as to offer no internal integrity,but fit conscript asians...well isnt the role of this forum to say Russia needs a new army built for and served by Russians?While a 1985 soviet army could smack down a contemporary Russian one with ease ,Russia no longer boasts 330 million peoples and large throw away soviet assets.Build the army of quality that a current and future Russia not only demands but has so well long deserved.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  GarryB on Wed Apr 13, 2011 6:18 am

    The t-72 through t-90 have the inherent carrousel/cassete ammo
    detonation problems ,hence a 99% crew mortality when the turret pops
    like a cork.

    I would suggest any explosion powerful enough to lift the several tons of metal that is the turret would kill 100% of those inside the tank.

    .If buying Leo 2 is a national disgrace to acquire perhaps buying a few
    hundred old British Centurions will teach Russia how to build war
    winning ,crew saving tanks again.

    Hahahahahahaha... might interest you to know that neither the Centurion nor the Leopard 2 have ammo separated from crew positions and when penetrated in combat they will both blow their turrets too... the Centurion had a petrol engine!

    The problems of the T-72s exploding violently when penetrated was the ammo that wasn't in the autoloader, it was the extra ammo carried by the T-72 in the crew compartment that was manually loaded into the autoloader in combat. The T-90 has been in combat in the 1999 invasion of Dagestan by Chechen rebels and I look forward to your posts showing a single destroyed T-90 with its turret on the ground next to it.

    The Russian tankers had learned from previous conflicts in the Caucasus that if you don't carry the extra ammo in the crew compartment then any penetration will not lead to an internal explosion.

    That is the reasoning behind the T-90 upgrade that adds an external turret bustle autoloader to add a further 20-30 rounds, which in addition to the armoured underfloor autoloaders 22 rounds means the tank will have 42-52 ready to use rounds.

    T-95 was the answer but the real troopers know to leave the carrousel
    unloaded,leaving a combat load of 3 minutes sustained fighting ammo.

    Hahahahahaha... the real troops knew to leave the carousel unloaded? The underfloor armoured carousel that protected the main gun ammunition from the effects of any penetration of the front, side, or rear armour...
    Where would they put the ammo that wasn't going into the autoloader? Would it be safer sitting it on their laps?

    The crews knew the armoured carousel autoloader was the safest place to put the ammo and they didn't carry the extra loose ammo normally stored in the crew compartment.

    Gimmicks will only delay the fact that with a small ammo supply even t-90S is a death trap.

    Duh. The thing that makes any tank a death trap... highlighted by the turret being blown off from an internal explosion of ammo and fuel... is an internal explosion of ammo and fuel. Shifting all the available ammo to the armoured carousel autoloader will certainly leave the vehicle short of ammo, but has the effect of making it NOT a death trap because the penetration needs to hit ammo to make the tank go boom.

    Also the T-90S is simply an export version of the Russian Armys T-90A.

    Start building tanks for the physical European build(men of 6 ft or
    more),even if the tanks are 8 ft high at commanders periscopes,armour
    them well,make room inside so not every penetration scores a kill.

    Excellent solution... make tank bigger target. The problem all that extra space means extra armour to protect... empty space. Why?

    If buying Leo 2 is a national disgrace to acquire perhaps buying a few
    hundred old British Centurions will teach Russia how to build war
    winning ,crew saving tanks again.

    WTF would Britain or Germany know about war winning tanks?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  GarryB on Wed Apr 13, 2011 6:38 am

    Nathan Bedford Forrest,premiere mobile warfare soldier without a doubt
    would say the t-72 species sacrifices armour for speed and size in a dog
    "chasin" his own tail methodology

    The T-72 was in service in the early 1970s and in comparison with tanks in service in other countries at that time is sacrifices nothing. Your suggestion of British or German tanks... lets compare the statistics of the T-72 compared to their contemporary British and German tanks shall we?

    The German contemporary to the T-72 was the Leopard 1... clearly what did you call it? A dog that chases its tail? A tank that sacrifices Armour for speed? But surely the Germans wouldn't make that sort of mistake would they?

    The British contemporary to the T-72 was the Chieftain tank... a tank known for its powerful main gun and heavy armour. Except that the T-72 had a more powerful gun and heavier armour and had a much more reliable engine... the Chieftains main weakness was its engine...

    Funny that really. You claim the T-72 is under armoured, yet it was better armoured than a Chieftain, which at the time was considered well armoured. The 70mm frontal armour of the Leopard 1 makes it guilty of all the things you claim for the T-72 but you think the Russians would be better off with a German or British tank.

    Make it small,hard to hit ...oops mod sights are to good,make it
    faster...again modern turret speeds and computerized gunnery offset
    this.

    Modern sights and modern turret speeds don't help overweight western tanks travel over bridges do they?

    Most medium transport aircraft can carry a 45 ton tank. Only the half billion dollar C-17 or a heavy strategic transport can carry an Abrams.

    So small as to offer no internal integrity,but fit conscript
    asians...well isnt the role of this forum to say Russia needs a new
    army built for and served by Russians?

    If you mean big fat westerners can't fit in Russian tanks... you are probably right but I don't see why this is important.

    [quote]While a 1985 soviet army could
    smack down a contemporary Russian one with ease ,Russia no longer
    boasts 330 million peoples and large throw away soviet assets.[quote]

    Actually they probably couldn't. The T-90 of today even in tiny numbers is better than the T-80 of 1985, and of course air defence has greatly improved since then. Also the numbers of Mig-29s and Su-27s would be less in 1985 than now, not to mention the difference in performance of MANPADS and ATGMs and of course artillery has moved forward too.
    A modern digital R-27 AAM would be far more potent a weapon than any 1980s Russian or Western AAM.

    The reality is that the old Soviet Army was certainly much bigger than the Russian Army is now, but the old system of three standards of readiness meant that only first line troops would actually be manned units with equipment, second line units would have most of its equipment but have a skeleton manning level and third line units would need a month to get manning and equipment levels to the point where they were functional forces.
    The modern Russian Army structure greatly reduces force sizes but it is the third and second line troop units that are disbanded and the first line ready troops have actually been enlarged so when they are fully equipped with all new gear they will actually be better able to operate and act than Soviet forces. They will be more like NATO units of 1985 except their gear will be 21st Century.


    Build the
    army of quality that a current and future Russia not only demands but
    has so well long deserved.

    By buying Centurions and Leopard 2s?

    Pugnax
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 110
    Points : 105
    Join date : 2011-03-15
    Age : 52
    Location : Canada

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  Pugnax on Wed Apr 13, 2011 6:52 am

    Never said build them ,i intended the engineers to learn to build crew friendly vehicles,not pyroclastic death traps.Check crew survivability,Russia cant afford to squander crews any.longer.Soviet era engineers ,hence Russian engineers with tenure are plodding out 3rd world war stuff when thats not even an option unless you consider China,guarentee ,if china goes west Nato be there before Russian main forces,ministry or interior will stall them an hour or two
    .

    Pugnax
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 110
    Points : 105
    Join date : 2011-03-15
    Age : 52
    Location : Canada

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  Pugnax on Wed Apr 13, 2011 6:58 am

    Kiwi ,i understand you want to defend your reputation ,so admit GRU or that a western soldier knows just how good the sovs were and what the rusians are at...billions spent to tach canninbals and muslims oops we were wrong, politburo

    Sponsored content

    Re: First photos of T-95 and T-90AM

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 6:45 am


      Current date/time is Fri Dec 09, 2016 6:45 am